Advertisement
Research Article

Depauperate Avifauna in Plantations Compared to Forests and Exurban Areas

  • David G. Haskell mail,

    To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: dhaskell@sewanee.edu

    Affiliation: Department of Biology, University of the South, Sewanee, Tennessee, United States of America

    X
  • Jonathan P. Evans,

    Affiliation: Department of Biology, University of the South, Sewanee, Tennessee, United States of America

    X
  • Neil W. Pelkey

    Affiliation: Environmental Science and Studies, and Information Technology, Juniata College, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, United States of America

    X
  • Published: December 20, 2006
  • DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000063

Reader Comments (3)

Post a new comment on this article

What about natives? And direct versus indirect correlations?

Posted by jebyrnes on 26 Dec 2006 at 16:24 GMT

At both scales, areas with more structures had more exotic bird species
http://plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0000063#article1.body1.sec2.p8

It is unclear whether the trends in species richness were entirely driven exotic species. If there is indeed no correlation with native species, then the story here becomes quite a bit more interesting. Similarly, to tease out direct correlations, versus apparent correlations driven by indirect effects, a path analysis or structural equation modelling approach here would have been far more appropriate than just looking at correlation coefficients. This would be particularly important if you want to look at native versus non-native diversity?


RE: What about natives? And direct versus indirect correlations?

dhaskell replied to jebyrnes on 22 Apr 2009 at 15:02 GMT

When the analyses are run without exotics, the same conclusions are reached. As seen in Table S1, exotics had minimal effects on overall richness.

Competing interests declared: I'm the author of the manuscript